Wood? Would not!!!!!

 In comparing the two texts and the style of writing in each, I would have to give the Wood book the thumbs down. It is not that I didn't learn anything or take any pertinent information from the book, it's just that it's so ordinary to me. The Hakim book is "nouveau" history text, the Wood book is "old school". The Hakim book is inviting to page through and even more enjoyable to read, while the other text is not very aesthetic or interesting at first glance. My event that I chose to compare was the Philadelphia Convention.  Seeing that we all are about to convene on our own sort of convention in Philadelphia it made me think about the actual meeting in 1787. The Hakim text does a wonderful job of describing with great deal the amount of time and preparation that had gone into the Constitutional Convention. I liked how it explained the behind the scenes outlook on the impact that James Madison had on the success of the convention. It shows just how important he was to having  the convention become a reality. According to the book, the success of this meeting of the minds happened because of the diligence, preparedness and organization of James Madison.  The Wood book offers a lot of information of what occured at the convention, however it does not present  Madison as the star of the show, so to speak. Both books give him credit for his reliable notetaking abilities, as the reason we know so much about what happened at the convention today. Again, if I had a choice between reading the Hakim book or the Wood book, the Hakim book would win hands down.